Exercise 1: Your March 3 (00) editorial describing the deeded lineage of Willamette Meteorite overlooks a salient aspect of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community’s claim to the artefact. The pervasive ramblings of the United States Cavalry across Indian land had a very coercive effect on Indian willingness to sign treaties in 1855, when the land on which the meteorite rested was obtained by the treaty. The Willamette Meteorite doesn’t belong in the Museum of Natural History any more than the Brooklyn Dodgers belong in the Los Angeles.
Answer: The above paragraph can be reformulated as premises and conclusion as follows:
Premise 2: The land on which the Meteorite rested was obtained from them by means of a coercive treaty.
Conclusion: The Willamette Meteorite legitimately belongs to the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community.
Explanation: The conclusion above is the implicit conclusion.
There are several (candidate) implicit conclusions in the above argument.
If Brooklyn Dodgers do not belong in the Los Angeles, the Willamette Meteorite too does not belong in the Museum of Natural history.
This is not, however, the correct conclusion/implicit conclusion because the premise is in the form of a condition. We never add a conditionalization as an implicit premise because it simply recapitulates the premise.
Willamette Meteorite doesn’t belong to any one.
This cannot be accepted as an implicit premise because implicit premises must be in accord with the intention of the arguer. The intention of the arguer is evident in the first sentence/premise
Meteorite doesn’t belong to any museum.
This too cannot be accepted as an implicit premises/conclusion because of the same reason that the premise/conclusion must be in accord with the intention of the arguer.
Willamette Meteorite as a rule doesn’t belong to anyone because United States Cavalry was hypnotized to coerce the Confederated Tribes into signing the treaty.
This conclusion too will have to be rejected because the implicit information is neither obvious, nor straightforward interpretation of what the arguer says. On the contrary, it makes the implicit premise/conclusion appear mysterious.
The Willamette Meteorite belongs to the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community.
It may be noticed that this conclusion is valid because it follows from the premises. In other words, it will be noticed that the support to this conclusion substantially increases with the two premises the author makes. Also, this conclusion is more likely to be true in comparison to the other premises/conclusions that we have evaluated. It also accords well with the intention of the arguer, and it is not in the form of a condition.
